‘It was not a case, it was a tragedy': Nariman

‘It was not a case, it was a tragedy': Nariman

The only thing the government has done correctly — it should have been done 14 or 15 years before — is to increase the compensation, if they genuinely believe that the victims have not got their amount.'

Fali S. Nariman, 81, is one of India's most illustrious lawyers and constitutional jurists and a former nominated Member of the Rajya Sabha. His recently published autobiography, When Memory Fades (Hay House, 2010) is a fascinating read in which he devotes one chapter to the Bhopal gas leak case in which, as senior counsel, he represented Union Carbide Corporation. In an interview with Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN's Devil's Advocate, Mr. Nariman re-looks at the issues from a reflective distance and offers his insights and impressions of what may be in store. Edited excerpts from the interview:

Mr. Nariman, after 25 years and after all that's been revealed and has emerged, do you regret accepting the Union Carbide brief?

Well, let me put it this way, If I had to live my life all over again, as a lawyer, and the brief came to me and I had foreknowledge of everything that later came in, I would certainly not have accepted the civil liability case which I did.

So, in other words, with hindsight, you would have said no?

Yes, only with hindsight.

Looking back at that time in 1985, when you accepted the brief, did you see this largely or simply as a legal case rather than as a national tragedy and, in that sense, was that the mistake you made?

Yes, I think so. Because I thought this was one more case which would add a feather to my cap. I mean one is always ambitious at that age. But I found later – but then it's too late, one can't walk out of the case one has already taken up – that it was not a case, it was a tragedy. And in a tragedy, who is right, who is wrong etc., all becomes marred in great deal of justifiable emotion.

The settlement

There is something very interesting embedded in the beginning of your answer – one can't walk out of a case once taken. But that does suggest that whilst you were the lawyer, you were beginning to have regrets about accepting the brief?

This is why I was very happy when, at the court's suggestion, the compromise ultimately took place: of civil liability between $500 million-odd, which the government was suggesting ultimately, and $350 million, which the Union Carbide suggested. And then I left it to the court and the court fixed $470 million.

I think the court had this problem before it. This was only an interim order. You remember, this was an interim order directing us to pay compensation, from which we came to the Supreme Court, Union Carbide came to the Supreme Court.

Let me raise this issue with you. This whole matter, after 1989, went into appeal, the appeal judgment came out in 1991 and, at that time in the appeal judgment, the Supreme Court said that it was unlikely that the settlement would be found to be inadequate. The Supreme Court has been proven to be hugely wrong. But that apart, the Supreme Court then said that in the event it was inadequate, those who fall ill thereafter would be the responsibility of the Government of India, totally letting Union Carbide off the hook. Was that fitting and fair and proper?

Because it's a settlement. There is no question of fitting and fair because if it had been a regular hearing, which [means that] after looking at all the documents and taking the evidence they had found that there was liability, then it would not be fair. But if it was without admitting liability that this sum was paid up, then the question was, and this was again argued in the second round, who should be liable. And the court said unanimously it is the government only which would have to foot the bill.

You are saying two very important things to me: that perhaps the victims, and the need for adequate compensation, would have been better served if a settlement hadn't been reached but a proper case for liability had been fought.

That was the dilemma. If that had been fought, it would have taken more years.

But it would have got a better outcome?

But the victims wouldn't have been helped because, in the meanwhile, what?

Unreformed tort law

So there was a trade-off between the time a court case would take and the fact that the settlement might not be as good as a court outcome but it would be quicker and faster. Is that right?

Let me tell you one thing. In tort cases, the law has been, right through, that unless liability is ascertained and fixed, there can be no interim compensation. In England, they altered that by statute long, long ago.

We haven't done it in India.

We haven't done it as yet.

As a result of which we wanted an interim settlement, we wanted a quick settlement and as a result of which the liability was never established in a court case. Let me put the second critical question to you. Would you today, maybe with the benefit of the hindsight, accept that at the end of it all, the settlement was inadequate and therefore unjust?

No, no I don't think so.

But surely it was inadequate? Surely, you accept that?

I am not sure. I have no means to say that it is inadequate. I think the fault perhaps is not only the quantum of the settlement, if you put it like that, but the delay in its distribution.

The delay in its distribution is explained in the manner in which the procedure and the law works in India but the quantum of settlement has turned out to be derisory not just for those who died but also for those who were crippled and disabled for life as well as those who were marginally injured. You surely must accept that the quantum is inadequate.

The inadequacy arises because there was a very large sum of money which was sought to be distributed amongst people living in certain areas not by reason of what they suffered but by their living in those areas. This was the problem.

As a result of which too many people qualified?

Too many people qualified.

Plight of hardcore victims

So the amount given shrank miserably?

Whereas the hardcore really suffered. So if you ask me, the answer would be yes, qua the hardcore victims.

What you are saying is qua the hardcore victims, the settlement was inadequate?

Yes.

And therefore, qua the hardcore victims, the settlement was also unjust?

Yes.

You accept both?

Yes.

Government will not succeed

Let's turn now to the steps the Government of India is trying to take today in 2010, in a sense to remedy the situation. First of all, they want to reopen the settlement with the hope of increasing the compensation. Do you think that's likely to succeed?

No, I don't think so.

Why?

Because a settlement is a settlement and unless there is some fraud involved, it's never reopened.

Even though, for the very hardcore, the settlement has turned out to be inadequate and unjust. Even then the settlement can't be reopened?

Yes, because the court had, in fact, stated that even assuming it was wrong with regard to the quantum, it would be the responsibility of the government to make up that extra amount.

But the same judgment that you cite, of May 1989, also ends by saying that the court would not leave people in despair. Doesn't that hold out a small hope that if the government goes back and proves that there are people in despair because the settlement was inadequate, it must be re-opened?

I don't think so. That's not my reading of the judgment. My reading of the judgment is that since there are, maybe, more victims or the compensation may not be sufficient, it would be the government's duty because it is the government which took over all the victims' claims by that special Act.

So if compensation has to be enhanced today, it is for the government to enhance out of its own coffers. You don't believe the Supreme Court of India will reopen the settlement and increase the compensation paid by Union Carbide?

Yes, I believe so.

So that settlement of 1989 is full and final, full stop?

Yes.

Criminal cases and Section 300 CrPC

The second thing the government is trying to do is to prosecute Keshub Mahindra and six or seven others under 304 (2). Do you believe that is likely to succeed or do you see it as an essential breach of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

I don't know very much about that criminal case, or judgment. I have just seen a copy of the judgment. I haven't examined the 10,000 pages of events because I was not in that trial court in Bhopal.

But Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure says that a person cannot be tried for the same offence, with the same facts, twice. Would re-opening the case, even under 304(2) rather than 304(A), amount to a breach of Section 300?

Yes, because 300 not only says another offence, it says for another offence, based on the same facts, involving a higher degree of punishment. So that for the same set of facts, you cannot have another offence and convict them, either on appeal or otherwise, and then say that they are liable to a higher degree of punishment.

Just to be absolutely clear, what you're saying is the attempt of the government to re-prosecute Keshub Mahindra and others under 304(2) is going to be a breach of Section 300.

Yes, absolutely.

It's illegal?

Yes, of course it is. And therefore my contention is whether Justice [A.M.] Ahmadi was right in dropping that charge under Section 304(2) or not is an irrelevant consideration at this stage. He could have been challenged when the trial was going on.

But not now?

Not now.

But the point is that the belief that the government can re-open the case and now charge Keshub Mahindra under a higher offence, 304(2) rather than 304(A), is a belief that has been emboldened by the advice of the Attorney General.

Then you'd better ask the Attorney General.

But you believe the Attorney General is wrong?

Of course.

So once again the government is intending to do something that would be wrong, that would be illegal, and would be struck down?

You see, this only raises the expectations of everybody.

To dash them?

Ultimately to dash them, but then public memory is short.

Once again the government is embarked on something which legal luminaries like you are saying is wrong and will not succeed?

I wish you had asked somebody who was not acquainted with the case and he will probably confirm it.

Finally, the government is also attempting, one more time, to extradite Warren Anderson. The man is 89. What are the chances of success?

It looks grim to me but if they have any means to do so, well, certainly they can do it.

What lies ahead?

Then what is the point of these three exercises, because you've made it clear, as a leading lawyer, that they are unlikely to succeed? They are probably wrong in law and they would be struck down by the court. So what purpose will be served?

The only thing which the government has done, in my opinion, correctly — but it should have been done 14 or 15 years before — is to increase the compensation if they genuinely believe that the victims have not got their amount.

So all that the government can do is pay more from its own exchequer but the attempt to re-prosecute, the attempt to open the settlement and get more compensation, as well as the attempt to extradite Warren Anderson, all three are unlikely to succeed?

Unlikely is correct.

Africa's angst – and nirvana

Africa's angst – and nirvana

Rajiv Bhatia

If African governments give greater priority to Asia rather than the EU and the U.S., they would discover that Asia, stretching from India to Japan, has much to share with them.

As World Cup drama unfolds on the African soil for the first time in history, it may be apt to examine the question: Whither Africa? This is particularly relevant as 17 African countries celebrate completion of 50 years of their freedom this year.

Since the ‘scramble for Africa' among European powers for establishing colonies in Africa in the 19th century, the continent has come a long way. On its journey, it has passed through a cycle of exploitation, stagnation, hope, setback and subsequent explosion of new expectations. The past decade seems to have witnessed the second ‘scramble', the competition among ‘old' powers — the U.S. and the EU — and ‘new' powers — China, India, Russia and Brazil, not to speak of ASEAN, Turkey and Iran — to re-engage Africa. Will the coming decade see African countries moving on the road to faster development?

What is required is a realistic evaluation of how Africa has performed in the years since Ghana became the first country to attain Independence in 1957. The late 50s and early 60s represented a special moment in African history as country after country overthrew the colonial yoke. This was the age of hope and of giants such as Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Ben Bella, Senghor, Lumumba and Nyerere. Soon, however, hopes were belied as parts of the continent were engulfed in conflicts. Africa had been caught in the vortex of post-colonial tensions. Neo-colonialism and cold war-related compulsions ensured that both democracy and development suffered enormously. According to one calculation, Africa went through 70 coups and 13 presidential assassinations between 1960s and late 1980s.

Regenerated optimism

The past two decades have regenerated optimism. The end of apartheid and emergence of a democratic South Africa was a big boost. In 1994, there were only eight democracies; today the number is 35. Economic performance has been improving. Between 1995 and 2005, GDP growth rate increased, averaging 5 per cent in 2005. Projections for 2011-12 indicate that growth would be between 4 and 5 per cent. However, these figures can hardly conceal the stark reality of poverty and its brutal consequences in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Television images of emaciated children, teenaged soldiers brandishing guns, and congested urban settlements infested with crime still define our idea of Africa. News stories about disastrous impact of HIV/AIDS, grossly inadequate facilities for health and education and poor governance continue to pour in. Besides, new challenges such as climate change, likely conflicts on water, energy security, and deepening marginalisation in world affairs complicate the situation.

Are Afro-pessimists right then in claiming that Africa's angst would not end in foreseeable future? Africa has been running behind other regions of the world in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. UNDP estimates that, by current trends, Africa would be unable to halve extreme poverty by 2147 AD.

I do not share this pessimism. Having spent seven and a half years in Kenya and South Africa and having travelled extensively in these countries as well as elsewhere on the continent (i.e. Lesotho, Ethiopia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mauritius, Egypt and Algeria), I have experienced, first hand, a strong yearning for change. The role of that deep yearning in hastening transformation is important. I have also witnessed talent, creativity, hard work, discipline and dedication on part of youth, women, civil society, media and business. They do not merely clamour for change; they have been working for it.

My considered view is that Afro-optimists are right in maintaining that Africa's turn too will come. But the important stipulation is that it will have to do more to achieve it. This task would become easier if its key international partners become more enlightened and less selfish.

What more can Africa do to secure its salvation – nirvana if you please, from poverty, disease, corruption, conflict and marginalisation?

Mbeki's prescription

Thabo Mbeki, South Africa's President from 1999-2008 and an intellectual giant, offered a thought-provoking prescription at an address in Pretoria on May 27, 2010. Referring to a World Bank report, issued in 2000, which suggested how Africa could “claim the 21st century,” Mbeki observed that its suggestions were “correct and unexceptionable,” but he emphasised that two important elements were missing. One was the need for Africans “to recapture the intellectual space” and to develop their “intellectual capital” so that they themselves could define their future. The second was the need to take necessary steps to ensure that Africa occupied its “rightful place within the global community of nations.”

In order to achieve its goals, suggested Mbeki, Africa should consider the following “Six Steps Forward”: build and nurture intellectual cadre committed to transformation of Africa; develop the capacity of state, government, business, and civil society institutions; resurrect African Renaissance Movement; achieve African cohesion resulting in Africa speaking with one voice on matters of common interest; and develop the media and means to communicate correctly about Africa's present and future. In my view, Mbeki's suggestions deserve wider attention.

About Africa's role in the world, the old colonial mindset seems to be alive and kicking. Recently a senior French minister called Africa “our El Dorado”, a legendary city of gold. France reportedly wants to ensure broader influence in Africa, seen as “a frontier for profit-making.” Many American, EU and Chinese companies seem to share this perspective.

Will Indian companies be different? Will they give to Africa as much as they receive from it, if not more? This is perhaps what Ratan Tata had in mind when he recently recalled that South Africa had been a victim of “exploitative and extractive enterprise”. He suggested that India and South Africa could have “a different relationship”, one based on mutual benefit and genuine partnership. His advice applies to all Indian companies operating in Africa, not just in South Africa.

Friendly governments such as India can certainly help Africa in its efforts to increase its representation in the institutions of global governance. India should take the lead in extending strong support to Africa's demand for greater representation in G-20.

Many African governments have let down their peoples. They will have to shape up. But, people's real hope lies in strengthening the triad of civil society, business and African Diaspora. The more these stake-holders contribute, by working together, towards empowering public opinion and curbing negative tendencies of governments, the more they will bring the day of salvation nearer. International partners should help by creating a stronger synergy with this triad.

A word of advice for African governments: they need to craft their own version of ‘Look East' policy. If they give greater priority to Asia rather than the EU and the U.S., they would discover that Asia, stretching from India to Japan, has much to offer and share with them.

At India-Africa Forum Summit in Delhi, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh spoke of India's wish “to see the 21st century as the Century of Asia and Africa with the people of two continents working together to promote inclusive globalisation.” These words struck a chord in many African capitals.

Amidst a rising crescendo of excitement before the World Cup began, South African President Jacob Zuma proclaimed grandly: “Africa has arrived.” Maybe, but realists are unlikely to agree.

Mother Africa would have “arrived” when democracy, peace and progress touching all her children, prevail on a lasting basis.

( A retired diplomat now, the writer served as India's High Commissioner to South Africa and Kenya.)

Private Treaties harm fair, unbiased news: SEBI

Private Treaties harm fair, unbiased news: SEBI

P. Sainath

There is indeed a vital link between paid news and private treaties. One is in the political sphere . And, second, in the sphere of business and commerce.

While the draft of the Press Council of India's yet-to-be released report on the ‘Paid News' scandal links that trend to earlier devices like ‘Private Treaties' and Medianet, the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had already written to the PCI a year ago, warning of the possible outcome of Private Treaties. Interestingly, the letter was from the Officer on Special Duty of SEBI's Integrated Surveillance Department.

The SEBI letter warned that “Private Treaties may lead to commercialisation of news reports since the same would be based on the subscription and advertising agreement entered into between the Media group and the company. Biased and imbalanced reporting may lead to inaccurate perceptions of the companies which are the beneficiaries of such private treaties.”

“It has been observed that many media groups are entering into [these] agreements, called ‘Private Treaties,' with companies which are listed or coming out with a public offer, for a stake in the company and in return providing media coverage through advertisements, news, reports, editorials etc.” So wrote SEBI to the Chairman of the Press Council on July 15, 2009.

“The Press has the role of providing fair, unbiased news to the public and financial press has to play an independent role of providing crucial, timely and factual information to investors,” SEBI wrote. “It is our concern that such agreements may give rise to conflicts of interest and may, therefore, result in dilution of the independence of the press vis-a-vis the nature and content of the news/editorials in the media of companies promoting such agreements.”

“It is understood,” wrote SEBI, “that Private Treaties are agreements between media groups and companies to promote and build ‘brand' of the company through print or electronic media which the media group owns, in exchange for shares of such company.” The letter has attachments which consist of printouts “from the websites of some of these media groups, listing out the companies with which the media group has such an arrangement and explaining the purpose thereof.”

After a series of stories in The Hindu on ‘paid news,' particularly during the 2009 elections, the Press Council, taking note of the issue, asked the Election Commission of India for its opinion on the matter. The Press Council had already set up a two-man subcommittee to inquire into and prepare a report on the subject. The report of that committee (detailed in The Hindu, April 22: Paid news undermining democracy: Press Council report) is yet to be released. Their draft report ran into rough weather, with a few Council members opposed to naming names. (Which the report does extensively, though providing substantial space to the rebuttals and denials of those named.)

On Thursday, the Election Commission of India directed chief election officers of all states to give serious attention to the paid news phenomenon which, it said, “is assuming alarming proportion as a serious electoral malpractice, has been causing concern to the Commission in the context of conduct of free and fair elections.” The ‘paid news' trend now seems firmly identified as a corrupt practice. The ECI has called for “maximum vigilance” so that the incidence of paid news “in the context of elections is arrested.”

Meanwhile, the blocked PCI report also links ‘paid news' and 'private treaties. One of its authors, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, told The Hindu: “There is indeed a vital link between paid news and private treaties. One is in the political sphere [which is paid news]. And second, in the sphere of business and commerce [i.e. Private Treaties].” The draft report dwelt on the nature and extent of those links at some length — again naming names quite plainly. Mr. Thakurta also says that the Private Treaties were “robbed of some of their sheen during the 2008 financial crisis that saw stock market indices plummet.” That's when ‘paid news' came in as a device that bypassed tax laws while flouting electoral laws and norms. And which also worked for politicians who could now exceed the poll spending limits without fear of getting caught.

In its letter to the Press Council Chairman, SEBI worried that “though the Press Council has Norms of Journalistic Conduct, which require journalists to disclose any interest that they might have in the company about which they are reporting, no such requirement exists in case of media companies holding stake in the company which is being reported/covered.”

The SEBI letter urges the Press Council “to take up this matter and consider the following: 1) Disclosures regarding stake held by the media company may be made mandatory in the news report / article/editorial in newspapers / television relating to the company in which the media group holds such stake.

2. Disclosures on percentage of stake held by media groups in various companies under such ‘Private Treaties' on the website of such media groups be made mandatory.

3. Any other disclosures relating to such agreements such as any nominee of the media group on the Board of Directors of the company, any management control or other details which may be required to be disclosed and which may be a potential conflict of interest for media group, may also be made mandatory.”

The authors of the Press Council inquiry in fact reproduced these recommendations in their report. However, owing to the resistance of a few PCI members, the final report is yet to be released. SEBI concluded its own letter with these words: “As free and unbiased financial press is crucial for the development of securities market, particularly with respect to aiding the small investors to take a well-informed decision, it becomes imperative that steps be taken to address this issue at the earliest.”

Bhopal gas leak case: all is not lost

Bhopal gas leak case: all is not lost

Sriram Panchu

The government should arrange for a current calculation of compensation requirements, provide the balance funds, and ensure speedy disbursement.

The verdict in the Bhopal gas leak criminal case convicted officers of Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) for rash and negligent acts causing death, and imposed the maximum penalty of two years. The offence arose from the leakage of methyl isocyanate gas on December 2, 1984 from the company's factory, which caused the death of several thousands of people and maimed several lakhs. Predictably, there is outrage not just at the disproportion between the consequences of the act and the sentence. It is deeper because the victims have got a raw deal on all fronts. A Group of Ministers, now examining action, met on Friday and is to finalise the recommendations shortly.

A revisit of events shows that the Government of India (GoI) bears responsibility in several ways. It allowed the plant to be located in a thickly populated area, with the knowledge that it was handling toxic gas. Its inspectors failed to enforce safety standards. Its culpability increased several fold after the world's worst industrial disaster took place.

The GoI took over the right to litigate, exercising the power of parens patriae, and thus prevented the victims from filing suits through their lawyers. It did not match this power with results or responsibility. It filed a suit in the U.S. court where it laid a claim for $3 billion on behalf of the victims. The last thing the Union Carbide Corporation USA (UCCA), the holding company, wanted was to be a defendant in its home country. It would face American tort lawyers, the most aggressive breed of the legal profession, who commonly secure verdicts or settlements for huge sums. The case would come before judges who are used to managing mass party actions efficiently, and a jury of common people, who could be expected to react to the magnitude of the suffering. The GoI lost on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction; Judge Keenan of the U.S. District Court sent the case to India. Round One to UCCA.

During the 26 long years taken to give the verdict ( the responsibility for which is also laid at the door of the Indian legal system), two major events took place, ensuring that the case was a lost cause even before it went to trial. On February 14, 1989, the GoI agreed to a settlement with UCCA before the Supreme Court. It agreed to accept $470 million, 15 per cent of its claim, in full settlement of all civil and criminal claims arising out of the disaster. (Round 2 to UCCA).

The GoI's justification was the delay in Indian courts, and the immediate necessity of providing relief to the victims. The protective parens patriae did not think it fit to provide such interim relief from its resources, which would have made this settlement unnecessary. The GoI did not give the Bhopal victims prior notice of the settlement. The resulting outcry led to the Supreme Court modifying it two years later; the criminal cases were resuscitated; the monetary settlement and cessation of civil liability stayed undisturbed. However, Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, writing for the majority, held that if the figure of $470 million was not adequate to compensate the victims, the GoI should make good the deficiency. This arose, he said, from the circumstances of the case and the obligations of a welfare state. A dissent on this aspect was entered by Justice A.M. Ahmadi, who asked why the Indian taxpayer should be burdened with this liability when the government had not agreed to bear this liability and was not guilty of wrongdoing.

In 1996, a two-judge Bench diluted the charge from Section 304 para 2 ( knowledge that the act would cause death ) to Section 304 A (rash and negligent act causing death) of the IPC. The penalty came down from 10 years to 2. (Round 3 to both UCCA and UCIL). The GoI defended the case and lost it. It is settled law that the court does not interfere with the trial of a case unless the complaint or charge sheet, accepted without demur, does not make out the offence. The charge sheet clearly stated that the factory in Bhopal was deficient in many safety aspects, its design and safety measures provided by UCCA were deficient, safety norms were not adhered to, factory officers failed to alert the district administration in time, and that all concerned had knowledge that the release of the gas would cause lethal destruction.

The District Court and the High Court found that a prima facie case had been made out by the prosecution requiring the accused to face trial. It would take the strongest legal reasoning to reverse this stand especially given the facts of the case. Justice Ahmadi's reasoning, contained in one paragraph, fell well below this mark. He startlingly held that “Even assuming that it was a defective plant and it was dealing with a very toxic and hazardous substance like MIC, the mere act of storing such a material by the accused … could not even prima facie suggest that the concerned accused thereby had knowledge that they were likely to cause the death of human beings.” In his view, the charge had to make out that the accused had knowledge that by the very act of operating the plant “on that fateful night,” they were likely to cause death. This would mean that the knowledge and the acts are restricted to that fateful night. Logically, it would follow that only the plant operators on duty that night would be liable; those who designed and operated it with deficient safety systems would not be. The GoI accepted this judgment, failed to ask for its review or for a larger Bench to hear the matter, considering that the court was dealing with a disaster of epic proportions.

The Group of Ministers will doubtless examine the legal options of reviewing the Ahmadi judgment, and securing Warren Anderson's presence (he jumped bail, and UCCA and he were declared absconders after they kept away from the trial in Bhopal.) The GoM may also examine if civil and criminal proceedings can be launched in the U.S. against Union Carbide and Mr. Anderson. Judge Keenan's order would be no defence for them, since he predicated it on their accepting the jurisdiction of the Indian courts. All these are difficult courses given the passage of time, conclusion of the trial and the cap on civil and criminal liability.

One remedial action remains, which is what the victims need foremost, and that is entirely in the hands of the GoI. Justice Venkatachaliah made it clear that the GoI would be liable to make good any shortfall in the compensation amounts. The compensation of $470 million was premised upon the number of about 3000 deaths and 30,000 injured. Over the years, the death and injury toll attributable to the gas leak is far higher than what was then officially recorded, with succeeding generations inheriting the health and environmental disabilities. A recent estimate puts the figure at 5,74,367 victims. The GoI should now arrange for a credible current calculation of compensation requirements (its claim in 1986 was for $3 billion), provide the balance funds itself and ensure speedy disbursement. Public policy and moral and legal considerations demand that it does so.

(The writer is Senior Advocate. srirampanchu5@gmail.com)

Hunger and the market

Hunger and the market

HARSH MANDER

A difficult life on the margins... Photo: Sumit Dayal

For the destitute and the disadvantaged, however old or infirm, the choice is between undignified, low-paying hard work or hunger. There are no safety nets provided by the State or communities…

The engagement with markets of destitute, powerless, socially isolated and devalued individuals, who try to daily battle hunger, and feed their dependants is always highly unequal and unjust. One striking universal finding in our studies of hunger and destitution was that however infirm the destitute are, however sick, however challenged to feed small children alone or themselves, there is no prospect for food unless and until they work. If begging is also considered work — and it should be because it is arduous and both physically and psychologically stressful — then this is virtually a universal rule that applied to every highly disadvantaged person we met in the course of our field studies.

Marti, an aged woman in Rajasthan, illegally cuts down trees from the scrub forests near her village, and burns these to make coal so that it is not too heavy to carry and sell in the market. She remarks fatalistically, ‘Let us see how long I will live. Once my body refuses to move, I will not be able to make coal and then I will starve. As it is, I am down to eating one meal a day'. Many old widows, who can barely walk, take on work of grazing cattle on hillsides. Antamma in Andhra Pradesh also goes to the forest to gather wood to sell and wild shrubs to eat, but twice in the past month she fainted while in the jungle. They persevere with enormous determination, but a time will come when their spirits start to ebb. Starvation and eventual death is inevitable.

No succour

Old people need to work regardless of whether they live separately or with their grown sons; they still need to contribute to the household in productive ways. In finding work, old people have to depend on the local economy, since migration as an option is ruled out physiologically and culturally. The migration of young people does create opportunities for work for aged people in villages, and also for single women and disabled persons, but since employers know they are desperate and powerless, they therefore pay them very low wages, often nothing more than food, country liquor and a new set of clothes every year. The work they are offered is low paid and physically difficult like cattle grazing on steep scrub hillsides with little foliage, weeding, sewing, cutting grass for fodder, cleaning cowsheds, husking and drying grain and gathering firewood and dung and similar activities that require work that is exacting and toilsome, and payment exploitative. Even this is always offered like charity to the unproductive and undeserving, rather than as a rightful claim to work.

This is ultimately the story of every day of every destitute life: the stark merciless choice between back-breaking undignified work, or hunger. There was no third choice, of well earned retirement and rest, of secure care, of adequate social security organised by the State, or by local communities and families.

Kamala in Rajasthan talks of her drift to the dangerous and stigmatised vocation of brewing illegal liquor. She remarks bitterly, “Who will give work to a widow? Everyone thinks she is searching for a man”. She lost her husband to TB when she was very young, but she could not take off even one day to mourn, as she had to feed her three small children. She was driven away from her husband's land by his brother, and cleaning cowsheds in the homes of the Patels brought her little more than stale food. She mortgaged her few belongings, but finally turned to brewing liquor. She collects mahuapods from the forest and ferments them for a week, adding many unsavoury ingredients. It is a dangerous vocation, on the dark side of the law. She has to regularly bribe the police, and the rowdy men who flock to her hut each night to get drunk are the same men who ostracise her by day. Although she is redoubtable and fierce, she is still a woman, and the drunks sometimes pay her less and even smash her earthen pots of liquor if she protests.

We found that most disabled adults were engaged in hard work which ‘ able-bodied' people were unwilling to do. We encounter Dhanu from Orissa and Kava from Rajasthan, both severely disabled, but fed and given a roof (but no walls) by their brothers, in return for hard unpaid labour of grazing goats and cattle. When Dhanu runs after the goats, the sores on his legs start bleeding. He cannot even hold an umbrella upright during the rainy season due to his finger-less hands, and so he returns home drenched after days of rain. When we visit Dhanu, his goats are suffering from some contagious disease. He is tense and anxious not only because the goats are his only companions; but also in case the goats are to die, what then would become of him? His brother would not continue to give him food and he could not hope to get any other work. Kava is older than Dhanu, born with a congenital physical disability. Both his legs are joined, and he cannot walk, only crawl. Kava's hands are full of sores because he takes his brothers' sheep to graze in the stony hill terrain in return for food at his brothers' home.

The markets are found to discriminate grossly with these people from the margins not just in work and wages, but also in extending credit. Old people are mostly rudely turned away when they seek food on credit from shopkeepers and trying to buy groceries on credit is always a humiliating experience. Shopkeepers say that there is no guarantee how long old people will live; they may slyly slip away to the other world without repaying their loans. Kampalli can never coax credit for food from the kirana shop as she is too old to be credit worthy, therefore she often just sprinkles salt on boiled rice and gulps it down with water, no dal, no vegetables. It is even harder for an elderly widow. Somi says, “When my husband was alive, we never had a problem finding credit, even though he was mentally slow. A man can get credit from anywhere, he can ask many people. But a woman is turned down more firmly.” They find that shopkeepers charge them more and give them less than their due because they are too weak to protest. Single women report that even formal banks turn them away, as do even many self help groups. If credit is extended by shopkeepers and landlords to those who have no assets to mortgage, they must pay for this dearly with labour in their farms or homes for low wages and long hours, especially for single women. This is indeed the resurgence of a new kind of short term bonded labour.

Humiliating

Many people with disability testify that even the thought of going to the kirana (grocery) shop stresses them greatly, but still there is no escape from it as the kirana shop not only provides them with many of their daily needs, but also at times is the only source of credit. So they weather visits to the shop in spite of routine dishonour and indignities. Indradeep is routinely refused credit from the shopkeeper, even though his son earns as a migrant labourer. The dealer tells him each time to come back the next day. When he returns the next day, he is told the same thing. He listens and goes home helpless and empty-handed. “Sometimes I wish that I was alone, then I would have managed somehow, but with a family it is very different. I can beg myself, but I would not let them beg for food for anything in the world.”

Mystery surrounds TISS survey findings on Bhopal gas tragedy

Mystery surrounds TISS survey findings on Bhopal gas tragedy

Mahim Pratap Singh

AP Activists from various human rights organisations and non government organisation participate in a protest rally demanding extradition of Warren Anderson, the head of Union Carbide Corp. near U.S. consulate in Kolkata, on Tuesday. Photo: AP

Whether it was bureaucratic callousness or political cover-up, the fact that the only comprehensive survey of Bhopal gas victims ever to be undertaken has yet to see the light of day 25 years later is likely to add to the controversy surrounding the disaster.

The Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) study was significant since it was the only comprehensive survey of the extent of damage wrought by the gas leak. The survey was initiated just two weeks from the date of the leak in 1984, while the victims were still visibly suffering from the consequences of inhaling deadly methyl isocyanate gas.

“It was much more comprehensive than any other government survey done till date and could have revealed some important information. That's probably why the State government never made its findings public,” says Satinath Sarangi of the Bhopal Group for Information and Action.

The survey was conducted by TISS along with the students, faculty and staff of several other social work institutes from all over India. A total of 478 students, 41 faculty members and 13 staff members covered 25,259 households in a period of six weeks.

The TISS team visited Bhopal at the request of the then Commissioner of Relief and Rehabilitation for gas victims. Since the State government refused to finance it, the survey was funded by the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust.

“Our team reached Bhopal on 8th December 1984,” says TISS Director, Dr. S. Parasuraman, who was a member of the survey team. “We then went back to Mumbai to organise the survey and returned to Bhopal towards the end of December. The survey started on January 1st and was completed in the second week of February,” he says.

Filled survey forms were handed over to the State government which promised to return them to TISS once they were processed for data.

However, this never happened even after repeated reminders to the then Chief Minister Arjun Singh.

“It was a truckload of data and TISS did not have large frame computers to process it then,” says Ms. Armaity Desai, former Director of TISS, who headed the survey team.

“Since the MP government had the computers, CM Arjun Singh persuaded us to leave the data with them. They later asked us for an analysis of the data which we sent and that was the last we heard from them,” says Ms. Desai.

Asked whether there was a political motive behind the concealing of data, she concurred. “What else could it have been since the survey findings were so crucial and complete? I even intimated Rajiv Gandhi about it when he visited TISS in 1985 but nothing came out of it,” she says.

And did she talk to Arjun Singh about it? “He would be the last person I would talk to since he was the one who probably buried it all,” she replied.

The survey findings included information about the number of people dead, orphaned children, pregnant women, lost domestic animals, injuries, breathing complications, and blindness among other crucial data.

The findings of the survey probably remain buried in old files of the Directorate of Gas Relief and Rehabilitation. J.T. Ekka, Director, Gas Relief and Rehabilitation refused to talk about the issue after repeated attempts.

“It was a cover-up bigger than most would imagine. It would have determined the exact scope and extent of the damage and compensation. No wonder the government buried it,” says Abdul Jabbar of the Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan.

Turn the nuclear bill from liability to asset

Turn the nuclear bill from liability to asset

Siddharth Varadarajan

The legislative challenge is to ensure that Indian victims get the same degree of protection from Indian courts as U.S. victims would from their courts.

As one of only two countries to run a nuclear power programme without any statute dealing with the possibility of an accident — the other is Pakistan — India has done well to finally recognise the importance of enacting a liability law. With ambitious plans for 20,000 MWe of nuclear power generation capacity on the anvil, liability legislation, especially if it helps internalise the risks associated with this expansion, can lower the probability of accidents. A good law would also ensure speedy and adequate compensation to victims.

The shabby manner in which the Indian system has dealt with the Bhopal disaster is a reminder of the need to place the victim at the centre of legislative action. Unfortunately, the international framework for nuclear liability is designed to favour nuclear suppliers. Despite this constraint, the Manmohan Singh government has managed to frame a law with some positive features. It includes two provisions that are not to the liking of the U.S., which wants to grab a share of the huge Indian market without accepting liability for any accident its products may cause. At the same time, the bill has some definite weaknesses.

The international regime on civil nuclear liability suffers from a serious flaw. By excluding the supplier, channelling liability for a nuclear accident to the operator and capping this liability, it leads to underinvestment in safety. This is because potential tort-feasors optimise their behaviour on the basis of artificially low damages they would have to pay in case things go wrong.

As Michael Faure and Karine Fiore have argued, any legal regime governing civil liability must aim to push the industry towards the prevention of accidents. “A basic notion is that the injurer should be fully exposed to damage costs in order to provide him with the necessary incentives for prevention” (“An economic analysis of the nuclear liability subsidy,” Pace Environmental Law Review, 2009). As a corollary, all those who can contribute to accident risk should be forced to internalise the costs of the damage they might cause. If all treaties on nuclear liability — including the Convention on Supplementary Compensation to which India is planning to accede — stand the economics of torts on their head, this is because of the nuclear suppliers' lobby. Right from the 1950s, when nuclear power was in its infancy, down to today, U.S. contractors have contended they cannot do business abroad if there is a danger of being exposed to law suits.

Under U.S. influence, international conventions dealing with nuclear liability have thus embodied three concepts of dubious merit from the efficiency perspective. First, legal channelling of liability for accidents to foreign operators, second, giving operators an extremely limited right of recourse against suppliers in the event of an accident and, third, setting aside ordinary tort law and disallowing fault-based claims by victims against operator or supplier.

All of this was done in the name of speedy compensation for victims since the quid pro quo of channelling was the rule of ‘strict liability' under which the operator is liable even if he is not at fault. Victims benefit from this rule since there is no ambiguity about who must pay. But as Tom Vanden Borre has argued, channelling was “not introduced to protect the victims of nuclear accidents, nor to reduce the insurance costs, but to protect the American nuclear industry.” The irony is that even as it has pushed the regime of legal channelling on the rest of the world, the U.S. system of economic channelling of liability allows tort claims as well as an unrestricted right of recourse for the operator. That is how, for example, Metropolitan Edison, the operator of the Three Mile Island reactor, sued its supplier, Babcock & Wilcox, after the 1979 accident.

Supplementing these layers of protection for nuclear suppliers is a fourth: legal jurisdiction belongs to the courts of the country where the accident takes place. Bhopal, where Indian victims approached a U.S. court, is the ghost that looms large. “While ultimately the court declined to take jurisdiction”, Ben McCrae, legal counsel for the U.S. Department of Energy, notes, “this was not because it doubted its capacity to do so: it basically waited to ensure that there was an adequate remedy available in India.”

In the wake of the Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement, therefore, getting India to accede to the CSC has been Washington's priority. That would effectively bar Indian victims from approaching an American court in the event of an accident involving a U.S.-supplied reactor. Of course, this in itself cannot be an argument against India adopting a liability law. Rather, the challenge is to embed nuclear liability in a set of legal and administrative measures that can ensure the payment of speedy and adequate compensation to victims as well as force everyone in the nuclear business — suppliers and operators — to internalise the costs of an accident. Indeed, the legislative challenge is to ensure that Indian victims get the same degree of protection from Indian courts as U.S. victims would from their courts.

In a recent article, Evelyne Ameye has confronted the flawed logic of channelling, making a safety-cum-engineering argument in favour of suppliers remaining liable for accidents their products may cause. (“Channelling of nuclear third party liability towards the operator,” European Energy and Environmental Law Review, 2010). This can be done in two ways. Liability for an accident can still be channelled on to the operator but his right of recourse in the event of supplier negligence is left unrestricted. The Russian Federal Act on Atomic Energy, for example, does not impose a limit upon the operator's right of recourse. (Alexander Matveev, “The Russian approach to nuclear liability,” International Journal of Nuclear Law, 2006). South Korea's liability legislation also allows operators to recover damages from suppliers in the event of negligence. A second way would be to allow victims to sue suppliers for fault-liability under tort law so as to win damages over and above what the operator pays through strict liability. Thus Germany, a party to the Vienna Convention on nuclear liability, entered a reservation stressing its right, under national law, to hold persons other than the operator liable for nuclear damage. Besides, several conventions on environmental damage — such as the 2003 Kiev Protocol on industrial accidents in transboundary waters — now explicitly provide for strict as well as fault-liability to run side by side.

Ameye argues that channelling can no longer be justified on the grounds of nuclear power being an infant industry. Nor is it healthy to exclude suppliers from the liability chain when nuclear technology is rapidly evolving. “Given the increasingly complex designs of the new generations of nuclear power plants, it is… both legally and realistically incorrect to maintain the heavy burden of legal channelling upon the nuclear plant's operator … To the extent that design knowledge becomes more hermetic, it will be hard to sustain the operator's liability for risks he is not aware of or, even worse, for risks he cannot perceive”. This is especially so when all major nuclear accidents in the past — Windscale, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl — have occurred, in part, because of design flaws.

Turning to the Indian bill, the inclusion of strict liability is a positive feature. The bill also legally channels this liability to the operator, thus eliminating any ambiguity about who must pay. On the positive side, too, is the additional 300 million SDRs (approximately Rs. 2050 crore) Indian victims would be entitled to from pooled contributions by state parties to the CSC, as and when it enters into force.

On the negative side is the cap placed on the operator's no-fault liability. The bill sets this at Rs. 500 crore, a figure that is low by international standards and by the requirement of safety incentivisation. In case the operator is private — a key qualification since the bill is not limited to public operators — this cap amounts to a subsidy as the government will assume liability for damages up to a maximum of 300 million SDRs. Private operators must not get such a benefit. Even if the operator is a public entity, the liability cap will distort the true cost of running a reactor and lead to a higher than optimal share of nuclear power in India's energy mix.

Where the original Indian bill is innovative is in allowing operators a right of recourse against suppliers in the event of gross negligence (Section 17(b)). Also, the bill would appear to allow victims to sue for fault-liability, though the ambiguous wording of Section 46 leaves unclear whether tort claims can be pressed against only the operator or any other person whose negligence leads to an accident.

Since both provisions undermine the principle of channelling, U.S. suppliers want them deleted. Not only must that pressure be resisted but steps should be taken to clarify their provisions.

Also, in the light of Bhopal, it is cold comfort to be told that victims can use existing laws to pursue compensation. As the Merlin case in England showed, courts can treat tort claims for nuclear damage with scepticism. In India, where the law of the torts is not well developed, it is essential that the nuclear liability bill provide mechanisms to allow victims to effectively press their case.

Dirt-poor nation with a health plan

Dirt-poor nation with a health plan

Donald G. McNeil Jr.

The wealthiest Rwandans pay the same $2 that the rural poor do for medical insurance.

The maternity ward in the Mayange district health centre in Rwanda is nothing fancy. It has no running water, and the delivery room is little more than a pair of padded benches with stirrups. But the blue paint on the walls is fairly fresh, and the labour room beds have mosquito nets.

Inside, three generations of the Yankulije family are relaxing on one bed: Rachel, 53, her daughter Chantal Mujawimana, 22, and Chantal's baby boy, too recently arrived in this world to have a name yet.

The little prince is the first in his line to be delivered in a clinic rather than on the floor of a mud hut. But he is not the first with health insurance. Both his mother and grandmother have it, which is why he was born here.

Rwanda has had national health insurance for 11 years now; 92 per cent of the nation is covered, and the premiums are $2 a year.

Sunny Ntayomba, an editorial writer for The New Times, a newspaper based in the capital, Kigali, is aware of the paradox: His nation, one of the world's poorest, insures more of its citizens than the world's richest does.

He met an American college student passing through last year, and found it “absurd, ridiculous, that I have health insurance and she didn't,” he said, adding: “And if she got sick, her parents might go bankrupt. The saddest thing was the way she shrugged her shoulders and just hoped not to fall sick.”

Rwanda's coverage is no fancier than the Mayange maternity ward. But it covers the basics. The most common causes of death — diarrhoea, pneumonia, malaria, malnutrition, infected cuts — are treated.

Local health centres usually have all the medicines on the World Health Organisation's list of essential drugs (nearly all are generic copies of name-brand drugs) and have laboratories that can do routine blood and urine analyses, along with tuberculosis and malaria tests.

Rachel Mujawimana gave birth with a nurse present, vastly increasing the chances that she and her baby would survive. Had there been complications, they could have gone by ambulance to a district hospital with a doctor.

“In the old days, we came here only when the mother had problems,” her mother said. “Now the village health worker orders you not to deliver at home.”

Since the insurance, known as health mutuals, rolled out, average life expectancy has risen to 52 from 48, despite a continuing AIDS epidemic, according to Dr. Agnes Binagwaho, permanent secretary of Rwanda's Ministry of Health. Deaths in childbirth and from malaria are down sharply, she added.

Of course, many things that are routine in the United States, like MRI scans and dialysis, are generally unavailable. Cancer, strokes and heart attacks are often death sentences. The whole country, with a population of 9.7 million, has one neurosurgeon and three cardiologists. (By contrast, New York City has 8 million people; at a national softball tournament for neurosurgeons in Central Park 10 days ago, local hospitals fielded five teams.)

(In another contrast with the United States, obesity and its medical complications are almost a non-issue. Visitors to Rwanda are quickly struck by how thin everyone on the street is. And it is not necessarily from malnutrition; even the president, Paul Kagame, a teetotaling ascetic, is spectral.)

General surgery is done, but waits can be weeks long. A few lucky patients needing advanced surgery may be treated free by teams of visiting doctors from the United States, Cuba, Australia and elsewhere, but those doctors are not always around. Occasionally, the Health Ministry will pay for a patient to go to Kenya, South Africa or even India for treatment.

With rationing this strict, how can any nation offer so much for $2 a year?

The answer is: It can't. Not without outside help. Partners in Health, the Boston-based health charity which runs two rural hospitals and a network of smaller clinics in Rwanda, said its own costs ran $28 per person per year in areas it serves. It estimated that the government's no-frills care costs $10 to $20.

According to a study recently published in Tropical Medicine & International Health, total health expenditures in Rwanda come to about $307 million a year, and about 53 per cent of that comes from foreign donors, the largest of which is the United States. One big donor is the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which is experimenting with ways to support whole health systems instead of just treating the three diseases in its name. It pays the premiums for 800,000 Rwandans officially rated as “poorest of the poor.”

In a nation of poor farmers, who is officially poorest is decided by village councils. They weigh assets like land, goats, bicycles and radios and determine whether a hut has a costly tin roof or just straw.

“People know their neighbours here,'' said Felicien Rwagasore, a patient coordinator at the Mayange clinic. “They do not make mistakes.”

Making every Rwandan pay something is part of Kagame's ambitious plan to push his people toward more self-reliance and, with luck, eventually into prosperity. The country has been called “Africa's Singapore.” It has clean streets and little crime, and each month everyone does one day of community service, like planting trees. Private enterprise is championed, and Kagame has been relentless about punishing corrupt officials. In the name of suppressing remarks that might revive the hatreds that spawned the 1994 genocide, his critics say, he suppresses normal political dissent, too.

Practical obstacle

A more practical obstacle to creating a health insurance system, however, is that most of the world's poor, including Rwanda's, resist what they see as the unthinkable bizarre idea of paying in advance for something they may never get.

“If people pay the $2 and then don't get sick all year, they sometimes want their money back,” said Anja Fischer, an adviser to the health ministry from GTZ, the German government's semi-independent aid agency.

The co-pays can also be overwhelming. Even $5 for a Caesarean section can be too much for people as close to the edge as the Yankulijes, who live by growing beans and sweet potatoes and wear American castoffs (Yankulije's T-shirt read “Wolverines Football”).

Many live by barter and cannot scrape together even $2 in coins, said Dr. Damas Dukundane, who works in a poor rural area. Since the government accepts only cash, he said, his patients sometimes go to traditional healers, who could be dangerous quacks but will take goats or chickens. As a result of all these factors, Rwanda is a patchwork of small clinics, some richer or better-run than others. Mayange's, for example, gets donations and guidance from the Access Project founded by Josh N. Ruxin, a Columbia professor of public health who now lives in Kigali.

For example, the computer that prints the insurance cards has a Webcam on it. Previously, Ruxin said, for insurance costing $2, villagers had to bring in photographs that had cost them $1 or more.

A clearer example of how the system overburdens the poor, he said, was the fact that the wealthiest Rwandans pay the same $2 that the rural poor do.

“It's totally insane that my mother pays the same as the woman who cleans her house,” Binagwaho said. “That law is being changed.”

Still, Binagwaho said, Rwanda can offer the United States one lesson about health insurance: “Solidarity — you cannot feel happy as a society if you don't organize yourself so that people won't die of poverty.” — New York Times News Service

The social question, who cares?

The social question, who cares?

Jan Breman

The Hindu With none to unburden them, these women go for work with resilience. Photo: V.V. Krishnan.

Built into the economic dogma of growth first is the ingrained notion held by large segments of the nation's elite that the fabric of inequality is meant to remain unimpaired.

“The Challenge of Employment in India; An Informal Economy Perspective” sums up the findings of a National Commission set up in September 2004 to review the status of the unorganised/ínformal sector in India (Volume I Main Report and volume II Annexures. Report of the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector, Government of India, Academic Foundation, New Delhi 2009. This report as well as the preceding ones are also accessible on website:www.nceus.gov.in.)

While the Shining India operation in the preceding years had increased the wellbeing of the already better-off, the United Progressive Alliance committed itself to ensure ‘the welfare and well-being of all workers, particularly those in the unorganised sector, who constitute more than 93% of our workforce.' The Commission — chaired by Arjun Sengupta and with only two members (K.P. Kannan and R.S. Srivastava) and two part-time members (B.N. Yugandhar and T.S. Papola) — managed to produce altogether nine reports. The last one elaborates on what the Commission considers to be the overarching problem, which is lack of adequate and decent employment at a fair wage for the large segments of the workforce hovering around the bottom of the informal sector economy. The urgency of such a plan of action is underscored by the finding that 77 per cent of the population in 2004-05 had to make do with, on average, no more than Rs.20 per day per capita. The Commission's classification of these people as poor and vulnerable stems from the observation that the official poverty line of Rs.12 per day consumption is fixed at an inordinarily low level and needs to be doubled in order to meet with international standards.

The NCEUS panel completed its tenure in April 2009. What happened next? Nothing at all. Receipt of the conclusive report was not even acknowledged, let alone taken up for further action. The stony silence has much to do with the evidence produced, which is that a very large chunk of India's informal sector workforce is mired in poverty and that its deprivation has not become much less between 1993-94 and 2004-05. In the decade when the neo-liberal reforms of the early 1990s started to take off — the rate of employment growth declined significantly and whatever increase took place was nearly exclusively within the informal economy. There has been a similar fall in the growth of real wage rates. As worrisome as the drop in the quantitative growth of employment was that no improvement has occurred in the quality of employment. More and more formal sector workers could hold on to their job only by accepting informalisation of their formerly secure and respectable labour standards. Sliding down from what in the doctrine of the free market is looked upon as unduly privileged and protected terms of service, these people have come to share the plight of the informal sector workforce summed up by the Commission as absence of job security, income security and social security.

Poverty and lack of resources are closely interrelated. It is quite clear that all those who have to rely solely on their low- or un-skilled labour power for making a living, did not benefit from the changing economic scenario in the decade on which the Commission concentrated its analysis. The years of high growth have made the middle and upper classes — barely a quarter of India's population — much better off than they were before, an equal portion may have managed to marginally enhance their condition, while the majority of the informal sector workforce made only negligible progress or none whatsoever. The note that productivity has increased at the same time that employment has stagnated leads me to conclude that labour is being squeezed even more than before. Of crucial importance in the intensification of the workload is wage payment not based on time rate but on piece rate. This modality goes together with what is recorded as self-employment but which actually is a disguised wage labour contract. What passes for self-employment easily boils over in self-exploitation because these workers are willing to exert themselves until the point of exhaustion for the sake of raising their all too meagre incomes. Apart from lengthening the workday and night, these workers also cannot afford to set children and the aged members of their household free from participation in the labour process.

The Commission's fact finding report ends with a list of recommendations. The most important ones can be clubbed together: to expand employment for the people in the lower echelons of the informal economy and while realising that prime objective see to it that the work provided will not be compromised by less than decent employment standards. Fully aware that the proposed agenda is bound to encounter strong opposition from vested interests, the rapporteurs suggest a first beginning by adapting a rights-based programme of action promoted by a more organised working class and a vigilant civil society. Their strategy is to establish a social floor. It actually means a return to the basic needs approach pushed by the ILO during the 1970s, although for a couple of years only. The NCEUS argues that an unconditional reliance on the free interplay of market forces in order to maximise economic growth is adhering to a road map which produces more deprivation for the segments down below and more wealth for those higher up.

These divergent dynamics are interconnected in the sense that the ongoing squeeze at the bottom is directly related to the accumulation of surplus at the top. It is basically a strategy of betting on the rich and forgetting about the poor, not to acknowledge the latter multitude as citizens but to reject them. To halt the drift to further polarisation, a turnaround in the economic policy from exclusive to inclusive growth is forthwith required. On the basis of my own experience, I share the Commission's opinion that participation in the process of economic growth is the yardstick of being included or not. I myself happen to be the product of the welfare state in Western Europe, the foundation of which emerged during the first half of the 20th century. The new trajectory meant that welfare was not spread around but got generated by expansion of decent and dignified employment in the public and private sector on the basis of state intervention and the political execution of socio-economic policies resulting in an egalitarian climate all around bent on dividing up the steady rise of national product in a spirit of equity, proportional representation in a democratic framework and social justice.

Symptomatic for the state of denial that characterises the current body of policymakers is their unwillingness to tackle the social question. They insist that the ongoing transformation from a rural-agrarian economy to an urban-industrial one is best served by freeing the forces of production from all market interventions and from all public meddling. In view of the massive poverty or even outright pauperisation it is remarkable that the powers that be are not bothered that the anguish and anger building up might spill over in outbursts of violence. While the Prime Minister has declared the Maoist threat in the remote forest hinterland to be the main security risk the nation faces, it seems that no thought is given to the simmering unrest in the urban and rural slums of the heartland. Built into the economic dogma of growth first is the ingrained notion held by large segments of the nation's elite that the fabric of inequality is meant to remain unimpaired. The social question does not even arise in a milieu favouring the better-off and shutting up the voices of the poor. For that reason, explosions of unrest are bound to come as a rude shock.

In my opinion, the Commission's work should be regarded as a landmark. But the exceptional contribution the Commission made is not only in terms of fact finding and analysis of what goes on in the echelons of the economy which are beyond the reach of the state. In addition, there is the set of do-able recommendations — financially and institutionally — on how to strengthen labour rights which are now missing for the men, women and children in the informal economy. The next step is to engage in action. Building up the political pressure in the public domain is a challenge facing all of us. Let us make a start.

(Jan Breman is emeritus professor at the University of Amsterdam and has carried out anthropological research for the last half century in India as well as elsewhere in Asia. His fieldwork has always focused on the labouring poor, the people at the bottom of the rural and urban economy. His latest book is Outcast Labour in Asia published by Oxford University Press in June 2010)

BHOPAL VERDICT

একটি পূর্বঘোষিত হত্যাকাণ্ডের বৃত্তান্ত

চন্দন দে

একটা খুনের সাজা বেয়াল্লিশ মিনিটের জেল।

একটু খটকা লাগছে কি? লাগলেও কিচ্ছু করার নেই, একেবারে নির্ভুল উত্তর— দশে দশ।

কে সি নাগের বইয়ে ঐকিক নিয়মের চ্যাপ্টারটা খুলে একটা অঙ্ক কষে দেখে নিতে পারেন। প্রশ্নটা ছিল, পঁচিশ হাজার মানুষের মৃত্যুর জন্য ৭অভিযুক্তের শাস্তি হয়েছে দু’বছর সশ্রম কারাদণ্ড। তাহলে একটা মৃত্যু পিছু কারাবাস কত? হিসেবটা আর দুর্বোধ্য ঠেকছে না তো! হ্যাঁ, এটাই নির্মম ন্যায় বিচার!

ও! একটা মারাত্মক ভুল হয়ে গেলো। পঁচিশ হাজার মৃত্যুর হিসেবটা তো আই সি এম আর (ইণ্ডিয়ান কাউন্সিল অব মেডিক্যাল রিসার্চ) এবং ঐ গ্যাস পীড়িত সংগঠনগুলির ‘সংখ্যা ভাঁড়ানো’ হিসেব। তাই সরকারী বইয়ের হিসেব মতো অঙ্কটা আরেকবার কষে ফেলুন। মৃত্যু: পনেরো হাজার। অতএব, সাজা: সত্তর মিনিট।

এতদিন ভোপালের মুখ্য বিচারবিভাগীয় ম্যাজিস্ট্রেটের দায়িত্ব সামলানো মোহন পি তিওয়ারি সামান্য ঐকিক নিয়মের অঙ্ক ভুলে গেছেন, তা নিশ্চয়ই নয়। হাই-প্রোফাইল কর্পোরেট বিচার শেষ করে পদোন্নতির আদেশ মাথায় নিয়ে পরদিনই ভোপালের অতিরিক্ত জেলা বিচারপতির পদে যোগ দেওয়া বিচারপতি তিওয়ারি জোর গলাতেই জাহির করছেন, ‘নিশ্চিতভাবেই ন্যায় বিচার হয়েছে।’

ঠিকই তো ন্যায় বিচার তো হয়েছেই। ‘আইন দেবী’র চোখে তো কাপড় বাঁধা, তিনি তো আর পক্ষপাত করতে পারেন না। তিনি তো চলেন তথ্য প্রমাণ, ধারা-উপধারাকে ভিত্তি করে। ঠিকই তো, মামলা চলছিল ভারতীয় দণ্ডবিধির ৩০৪ক ধারায়। সাধারণত সড়ক দুর্ঘটনায় প্রাণহানির ক্ষেত্রে গাড়িচালকের বিরুদ্ধে ঐ ধারায় মামলা করা হয়। সর্বোচ্চ শাস্তি দু’বছরের জেল আর জরিমানা। তার সঙ্গে যে ৩৩৬, ৩৩৭ ও ৩৩৮ নম্বর ধারা ছিল, তার কোনওটাতেই দু’বছরের কারাদণ্ড ও এক হাজার টাকার বেশি জরিমানার সুযোগ আইনে নেই।

রায় বেরোনোর রাতে টেলিফোনে কথা হলো সাধনা কারণিকের সঙ্গে। গত ছাব্বিশ বছর ধরে সাধনা গ্যাস পীড়িতদের লড়াইয়ে আছে। সুখের ঘরদোর আর মাস মাইনের চাকরি ছেড়ে ঘটনার একদিন পরই ইন্দোরের মেয়ে সাধনা এসে আস্তানা গেঁড়েছিল বিধ্বস্ত ভোপালে। তারপরের ছাব্বিশটা বছর কেটে গেছে আইনী লড়াই, বেঁচে থাকার লড়াই, বাঁচিয়ে রাখার লড়াই লড়তে লড়তে।

ভেঙে পড়া মন নিয়ে সাধনা ধারা বিবরণী দিচ্ছিল সেদিনের কোর্ট চত্বরের। বিচারপতি তিওয়ারির নির্দেশে আদালত কক্ষে ওঁরা সেদিন ব্রাত্য। ঢুকতে পারবে কেবল অভিযুক্ত ও তার আইনজীবীরা। বাকিদের প্রবেশ নিষেধ। সে তুমি সুপ্রিম কোর্টে এই কাণ্ডের পিটিশনারই আর ক্ষতিগ্রস্তই হও—তোমার জন্য আদালতের দরজা বন্ধ। সাংবাদিকদেরও ঢুকতে দেওয়া হয়নি, এমনকি মামলার সাক্ষীদেরও। সাধনার কথায়, যে মহিলা পুলিস খানিক আগেই আমাদের লাঠির গুঁতো দিয়েছে, সেই দেখলাম অন্যতম অভিযুক্ত কিশোর কামদারকে ‘আইয়ে আইয়ে কামদার সাহাব’ বলে সম্ভ্রমের সাথে ভেতরে নিয়ে যাচ্ছে। ওঁর আগেই অবশ্য ওঁর প্রাক্তন বস কেশব মহিন্দ্রা যখন আদালতে জনতা তাকে স্বাগত জানালো ‘কাসভ’ মহিন্দ্রা বলে। আদবানিরা শুনলে হয়তো দুঃখ পাবেন, যে শিল্পপতিকে ২০০২সালে তাঁরা পদ্মভূষণ দিতে চেয়েছিলেন, ২০১০-এ মানুষ তার নামের সাথে জুড়ে দিয়েছে আন্তর্জাতিক এক সন্ত্রাসবাদীর নাম।

তবু কেশব মহিন্দ্রার এক সঙ্গী যখন সেদিন আদালত কক্ষ থেকে বেরিয়ে প্রথম খবরটা জানালো, ৩০৪ক ধারায় সব অভিযুক্তই দোষী সাব্যস্ত হয়েছে, তখন আদালতের বাইরের ভিড়টা যেন একটু নড়েচড়ে বসেছিল। ভেতরে হয়তো তখন চলছিল আইনী কূটকাচালি, দু বছর জেল? না কি এক বছর, না ছ’মাস? অথবা শুধু জরিমানা?

বাইরে রশিদা বাঈ, হামিদা বাঈ বা কমলা বাঈদের মতো কেউ কেউ হয়তো তখনও ভাবছিল, বহুদিন ধরে মনের কোণে পুষে রাখা ইচ্ছেটা এবার পূরণ হবে। কড়া শাস্তি হবে ওদের। স্বপ্ন কিছুতেই বাস্তব হয়নি। আইনী ধারা মেনে দোষীদের সর্বোচ্চ সাজাই ঘোষণা করেছেন বিচারপতি মোহন তিওয়ারি। আর আইনবলে সড়ক দুর্ঘটনার সমান ক্রাইম করায় ‘অপরাধী’ ২৫হাজার টাকার ব্যাক্তিগত জামিনে ছাড়া পেয়ে বাড়ি ফিরে গেলেন। ফিরবেন এটা জেনেই অবশ্য রিটার্ন টিকিট পকেটে পুরেই তারা আদালতে গিয়েছিলেন।

এসেছিলেন পুলিসী নিরাপত্তায়, পুলিসী ব্যাটনের ঘুর্ণিঝড়েই তাঁরা ফিরে গেলেন। মাঝের চারটে ঘন্টা শুধু মঞ্চস্থ হলো ‘ন্যায় বিচার’ নামাঙ্কিত চড়া দাগের এক নাটক, যার জন্য ভোপালের মানুষ, ভোপালের বাইরের মানুষ অপেক্ষা করে ছিল তেইশটা বছর।

ঠিক এভাবেই ২৬বছর আগে ভোপালে মাত্র ছ’ঘন্টা নাটুকে পুলিসী হেফাজতে কাটিয়ে মার্কিন মুলুকে পালিয়ে গিয়েছিলেন ইউনিয়ন কার্বাইডের তৎকালীন সি ই ও, এই গণহত্যার মূল অভিযুক্ত ওয়ারেন অ্যাণ্ডারসন। এই সোমবার আদালত চত্বরে সবচেয়ে তীক্ষ্ণ যে স্লোগানটা শোনা গেছে, তা ছিল, ‘অ্যাণ্ডারসনকো ফাঁসি দো।’ সেদিনও রাজ্য সরকারের বিমানে দিল্লি পাঠানোর সময় ঐ অ্যাণ্ডারসনকে সেলাম ঠুকেছিল দায়িত্বপ্রাপ্ত পুলিস অফিসার। বিমানে ওঠার সময় হাতের গার্মেন্ট বক্স (বিজনেস স্যুট ক্যারি করার জন্য) আর ব্রিফকেসটা যাতে তাকেই বইতে না হয়, তার জন্য পুলিস অফিসারের কত অনুনয়-বিনয়।

অথচ তখনকার মুখ্যমন্ত্রী অর্জুন সিং সকাল আটটায় ভোপালের জেলাশাসককে নিজের বাড়িতে ডেকে পাঠিয়ে নির্দেশ দেন, আপনি এখনই বিমানবন্দরে যান। কিছুক্ষণের মধ্যেই অ্যাণ্ডারসন এসে পড়বে। এয়ারপোর্ট আধিকারিকদের বলা আছে, যতক্ষণ না আপনি পৌঁছাচ্ছেন, বিমান যেন নামতে দেওয়া না হয়।

সেই জেলাশাসক মোতি সিং যখন বিমানবন্দরে পৌঁছালেন, দেখলেন, বিমান নেমে গেছে। তবে দরজা খোলেনি। সেখানেই অ্যাণ্ডারসনের সঙ্গে কেশব মহেন্দ্র ও বিজয় গোখলেকে গ্রেপ্তার করে নিয়ে যাওয়া হয় শামলা হিলসে ইউনিয়ন কার্বাইডের বিলাসবহুল গেস্টহাউসে।

কিন্তু দুপুর দুটোয় মুখ্য সচিব ব্রহ্ম স্বরূপ জেলাশাসক মোতি সিং আর পুলিস সুপার পুরীকে তাঁর অফিসে ডেকে পাঠান। তাঁদের বলা হয়, অ্যাণ্ডারসনের জন্য একটা বিমান অপেক্ষা করছে। যত শীঘ্র সম্ভব নিয়ম-কানুন শেষ করে ও যাতে দিল্লি উড়ে যেতে পারে তার ব্যবস্থা করা হয়।

গত বুধবার এই গোটা উপাখ্যান ফাঁস করে মোতি সিং জানিয়েছেন, তিনিই নিয়ম-কানুন মেনে অ্যাণ্ডারসনের জামিনের ব্যবস্থা করেন। সেবারও ব্যাক্তিগত জামানত ছিল ঐ পঁচিশ হাজার টাকাই। মোতি সিং এখনও ধোঁয়াশায়, সকালে যে সরকারকে মনে হয়েছিল ইউনিয়ন কার্বাইডের প্রতি বেশ কঠোর মনোভাব নিচ্ছে, বেলা গড়াতেই কার অঙ্গুলি হেলনে এমন ভোলবদল। আমলা মহলে একটা কথা ঘোরাঘুরি করে, স্বয়ং মার্কিন প্রেসিডেন্ট রোনাল্ড রেগন নাকি অ্যাণ্ডারসনের জন্য ভারতের কোনো গুরুত্বপূর্ণ ব্যাক্তির সঙ্গে কথা বলেছিলেন।

তখনও এ বিশ্বটা এমন মার্কিন দিকে ঝুঁকে পড়েনি। তারই মধ্যে এদেশে যে মার্কিন লেজুড়বৃত্তি শুরু হয়ে গিয়েছিল অ্যাণ্ডারসন পর্ব তারই নজির। ‘ন্যায় বিচার’-এর নির্মম উদাহরণে সোমবারের রায়— দোষী সাব্যস্ত, সাজাপ্রাপ্ত কোনো জায়গাতেই নাম পর্যন্ত উল্লেখ হয়নি অ্যাণ্ডারসনের।

শুধু দেশ থেকে পালিয়ে যাওয়ার ব্যবস্থা করাই নয়, যাতে তাঁকে আর কোনো ভাবে এদেশের আদালতে হাজিরা দিতে না হয়, তার ব্যবস্থাও পাকা করা হয়েছে। ভারতীয় বিচারব্যবস্থা, তদন্তকারী সংস্থা সি বি আই, কর্পোরেট লবি, রাজনীতি একযোগে একাজ করেছে। অ্যাণ্ডারসনকে কেবলমাত্র ফেরার ঘোষণা করেই দায় এড়িয়েছে বিচারব্যবস্থা। আর সি বি আই চেষ্টা করেছে যাতে মামলা লঘু করা যায়। সরকার সি বি আই-কে চাপ দিয়েছে যাতে অ্যাণ্ডারসনের প্রত্যার্পণ নিয়ে না এগোনো হয়।

ভারতের আদালত যখন তাঁকে ‘ফেরার’ ঘোষণা করছে ওয়ারেন অ্যাণ্ডারসন তখন ঘন ঘন শাটল যাতায়াত করে বেড়াচ্ছেন নিউইয়র্কের লঙ আইল্যাণ্ড, ফ্লোরিডা আর গ্রীনউইচ, মার্কিন বড়লোকদের তিন লীলাক্ষেত্রের মধ্যে। আফগানিস্তানের কোন গুহায় লাদেন লুকিয়ে আছে, তা এক নিমেষেই জানিয়ে দিতে পারলেও এত গুলো বছরেও মার্কিন কর্পোরেট ক্রিমিনাল ওয়ারেন অ্যাণ্ডারসনের হদিস দিতে পারে না সেই মুলুকের দুঁদে গোয়েন্দা সংস্থা, এফ বি আই।

আশ্চর্য ঠেকলেও এটাই সত্য।

যেমন সত্য, ১৭৮জন সাক্ষীকে হাজির করলেও সি বি আই কখনও সাক্ষ্য দেওয়ার জন্য রাম চরণ বাথামকে ডাকেনি। কে এই বাথাম?

ভোপালের তৎকালীন জেলাশাসক মোতি সিং ১৯৮৪-র ৭ই ডিসেম্বরের কথা ফাঁস করলেও ২রা ডিসেম্বর নিয়ে এবার কিছু বলেননি। ঘটনা হলো, ঐদিন দুপুরে বাথাম জেলাশাসককে ফোন করেছিলেন। আশঙ্কা প্রকাশ করেছিলেন, কারখানা দিয়ে অল্প অল্প বিষাক্ত গ্যাস বেরোচ্ছে। কিন্তু অফিসিয়ালদের দল তা অস্বীকার করে। সেই অফিসিয়ালদের মধ্যে ছিল কে ভি শেট্টি, তখনকার প্ল্যাণ্ট সুপারিনটেন্ডেন্ট। গত ৭ই জুন এই শেট্টিরও সাজা ঘোষণা হয়েছে।

কোন অজ্ঞাত কারণে সি বি আই ঐ ইউনিয়ন কার্বাইডেরই মেকানিক রাম চরণ বাথামকে সাক্ষ্য দিতে ডাকলো না কে জানে?

গত কুড়ি বছরে কারণে-অকারণেই ভোপাল যেতে হয়েছে। কথা হয়েছে সাধনা কারণিক থেকে আব্দুল জব্বরের মতো গ্যাস পীড়িতদের সংগঠনের মাথাদের সাথে। কথা হয়েছে, হালিমান বি থেকে রশিদা বি, অর্চণা বাঈদের মতো গ্যাসের কাণ্ডে অন্ধ চোখ, বিষ গ্যাস ভরা ফুসফুস আর পঙ্গু সন্তান নিয়ে জীবনের হাপর টানতে থাকা গ্যাস পীড়িতদের সঙ্গেও। সকলেই বলেছেন, সি বি আই মামলাটাকে লঘু করে দিচ্ছে। সকলেই বলেছেন, চেষ্টা করলে রোখা যেত ঐ মারাত্মক বিভীষিকার রাত। সকলেরই অভিযোগ, যতই ওরা নিজেদের নিরাপত্তা ব্যবস্থাকে দেশের সেরা বলে দাবি করুন, কারখানার নকশা, প্রযুক্তি ও যন্ত্রপাতির ক্ষেত্রে যে ত্রুটি-গাফিলতি ছিল এবং তা থেকে যে দুর্ঘটনা ঘটতে পারে, তা সংস্থার কর্তাদের আগে থেকেই জানা ছিল।

দুর্ঘটনা এই কারখানায় লেগেই থাকতো, কর্তৃপক্ষ অবশ্য সে সব খবর প্রভাব খাটিয়ে চেপে রাখতো। শেষ পর্যন্ত অবশ্য চেপে রাখা যায়নি। ১৯৮১সালের ২৬শে ডিসেম্বর ফসজিন গ্যাস লিক হয়ে মৃত্যু হয় প্ল্যান্ট অপারেটর মহম্মদ আসরাফের। পরের বছর ৯ই জানুয়ারি আবার লিক করেছিল গ্যাস। অসুস্থ হয়ে পড়েছিলেন ২৫জন শ্রমিক।

মৃত্যু পরোয়ানা এখানেই শেষ নয়। ১৯৮২-রই ৫ই অক্টোবর মধ্যরাত। মিক প্ল্যান্টে কাজ করছিলেন অপারেটর ওয়াদেকার। দুটো পাইপলাইনের সংযোগকারী ভালভ খুলতেই বিস্ফোরণ। মারণ তরল মিথাইল আইসোসায়ানাইট এমনভাবে বেরিয়ে এলো যেন জ্বলন্ত লাভা। মাঝরাতের নিস্তব্ধতা ভেঙে খান খান করে দিলো ‘অলক্ষুণে’ সাইরেনের শব্দ।

ইউনিয়ন কার্বাইড চত্বরের মধ্যেই এই ঘটনা ঘটলেও বাতাসে মিশে মিথাইল আইসোসায়ানাইট তার আসল রঙ চেনাতে শুরু করলো। ফলাফল হলো আশপাশের গ্রীন পার্ক কলোনি, নারাইল খেড়া, ছোলা রোডের মানুষজন গভীর ঘুমের মধ্যেই শ্বাসকষ্ট অনুভব করতে থাকলেন। সাইরেনের শব্দে ঘুম ভেঙে তাঁরা আতঙ্কের বিনিদ্র রাত জাগলেন।

যাঁরা আবার এই বিপদটার কথা জানতেন, বাঁচার তাগিদে তাঁরা ছুট লাগিয়েছিলেন নতুন শহরের দিকে। এই ঘটনায় গুরুতরভাবে অসুস্থ হয়ে পড়েন সংস্থার চার কর্মী। আতঙ্কের হুড়োহুড়িতেও আবার জখম হয়েছিলেন অনেকজন।

চুরাশির ডিসেম্বরের সেই রাতের মাস ছয়েক আগেই এই সমস্ত দুর্ঘটনার কথা উল্লেখ করে স্থানীয় সাংবাদিক রাজকুমার কেশোয়ানি ইউনিয়ন কার্বাইডের ত্রুটিপূর্ণ প্রযুক্ত ও সংস্থার গাফিলতির ফলে দুর্ঘটনা ঘটতে পারে বলে সজাগ করেছিলেন। ১৬ই জুন, ১৯৮৪তারিখে জনসত্তা পত্রিকায় প্রকাশিত ‘আগ্নেয়গিরির মাথায় দাঁড়িয়ে ভোপাল’ শীর্ষক নিবন্ধে কেশোয়ানি এও জানিয়েছিলেন, তিরাশিতেও দু-দুটো দুর্ঘটনা হয়েছিল। এমনকি ১৯৮৪-র প্রথমদিকে কয়েকমাস রাসায়নিক অ্যালার্জিতে ভুগে মারা যান ইউটিলিটি সেকশনের অরুণ মাথুর। মৃত্যুর কারণ নিয়ে খোঁজখবর তো হয়ইনি, বরং মাথুরের পরিবারকে জোর করে রাজস্থানে পাঠিয়ে দেওয়া হয়েছে।

তাহলে গোটাটাই কি বহুজাতিক ইউনিয়ন কার্বাইডের গাফিলতি? সরকার-প্রশাসন বলতে তাহলে এদেশে কিছুই ছিল না? এপ্রসঙ্গে কেশোয়ানির নিবন্ধের একটা অংশ উল্লেখ করাই হয়তো যথেষ্ট হবে। ‘‘১৯৮২-র ২১শে ডিসেম্বর, তৎকালীন শ্রমমন্ত্রী তারা সিং বিযোগীকে রাজ্য বিধানসভায় কার্বাইড নিয়ে ঘোরতর প্রশ্নের মুখে পড়তে হয়েছিল। যদিও তিনি বিধানসভাকে আশ্বস্ত করেছিলেন এই শুনিয়ে যে, বিষাক্ত গ্যাসে কোনো বিপদের ঝুঁকি নেই। তিনি জানান, নিরাপত্তার কারণে কারখানায় বড় বড় ঝরণা তৈরি করা হয়েছে। তিনি আরো জানান, এর জন্য কাচের যন্ত্রপাতি লাগানো হয়েছে। তিনি বুঝিয়ে বলেন, কাচ ভেঙে দিলেই আপনা আপনি ঝরণা চালু হয়ে যাবে এবং গ্যাসের বিষাক্ত প্রভাব প্রশমিত হবে।

কিন্তু কোম্পানি সূত্রেই খবর আদতে গ্লাস ভাঙলেও সাইরেনও বাজেনি, ঝরণাও চালু হয়নি। কার্বাইড সংস্থা একটা নিরাপত্তা সপ্তাহ পালন করেছিল। বিযোগী নিজে সেখানে গিয়েছিলেন। সেখানকার আধিকারিকরা তাঁকে জানিয়েছিলেন, কাচ ভাঙলেই সাইরেন বাজবে। বিযোগী নিজে কাচ ভেঙেছেন, কিন্তু সাইরেন বাজেনি। তাসত্ত্বেও যে কিসের ভিত্তিতে উনি মনে করে নিলেন যে ঝরণা চালু হয়ে যাবে তা স্পষ্ট নয়।’’

এসবের যে খিছুই সি বি আই জানতে পারেনি তা তো নয়। সি বি আই-র নিজেরই পেশ করা হলফনামায় জানিয়েছে, চুরাশির ২রা ডিসেম্বর রাতেঐ কারখানার সেফটি সিস্টেমের ছ’টাই খারাপ ছিল। আর সাইরেন বন্ধ করে রাখা ছিল। সি বি আই-র সেই প্রথম চার্জশিটে অ্যাণ্ডারসনসহ ১২জনের বিরুদ্ধেই ৩০৪(২) ধারায় অভিযোগ আনা হয়েছিল।অনিচ্ছাকৃত খুনের সেই অপরাধ প্রমাণ হলে ১০বছর কারাদণ্ড হতে পারতো, যদিও সেই সাজাও এদের যথেষ্ট নয়। কেন্দ্রের সরকার ও ইউনিয়ন কার্বাইডে প্রাথমিক সমঝোতা মতো ক্ষতিপুরণ ধার্য হয়েছিল ৪৭কোটি ডলার। সঙ্গে শর্ত গ্যাসকাণ্ডের জন্য দায়ী তাদের আধিকারিকদের বিরুদ্ধে ফৌজদারি মামলা তুলে নেওয়ার। ১৯৮৯-এ সুপ্রিম কোর্ট নিজেই সেই অভিযোগ খারিজ করে দেয়। আবার নিজের রায় পুনর্বিবেচনা করে ১৯৯১-তে ফের মামলা শুরু করে। আবার ১৯৯৩-র ১৩ই সেপ্টেম্বর সুপ্রিম কোর্ট ৩০৪(২) ধারার বদলে ৩০৪(ক) ধারায় মামলা করতে নির্দেশ দেয়। কারখানার নিরাপত্তা ব্যবস্থায় গলদ ছিল জানার পরও এই রায়, আবার সি বি আই-রও সেই রায় পুনর্বিবেচনার জন্য কোনো আবেদন না জানানো— কোনোটাকেই সন্দেহের উর্ধে নয়।

একটা কথা বলতেই হচ্ছে, এযাবৎ ইউনিয়ন কার্বাইডের কৌশলটাই ছিল উৎকোচ কিংবা হাত ধুয়ে ফেলা। দায় এড়াতে ধাপে ধাপে ওরা সংস্থার বেশিরভাগ অংশটাই ডাও কেমিক্যাল বা অন্যান্যদের বেচে দিয়েছে। ৪৭কোটি ডলারের যে আর্থিক সমঝোতা কেন্দ্রের সঙ্গে করেছে তা তো আসলে মৃত, পঙ্গু বা অসুস্থ প্রতি পাঁচজন মাথাপিছু একজনের হিসেবে। এক একজন পনেরো হাজারেরও কম টাকা পেয়েছেন। আরে, অ্যাণ্ডারসন তো গল্‌ফ ক্লাবের মেম্বারশিপ রাখতে বছরে যা খরচ করেন, তাও ভোপালের এই মাথাপিছু ক্ষতিপূরণের চার-পাঁচ গুণ।

আসলে বহুজাতিকের হাত বিশেষ করে মার্কিন হাত তখন থেকেই অনেক লম্বা হতে শুরু করেছে। না হলে কি আর জাতীয় নিরাপত্তাকে থোড়াই কেয়ার করে সামলা হিলসে একেবারে মুখ্যমন্ত্রীর বাসভবনের গাঁ ঘেঁষে তৈরি হয়ে যায় শুধুমাত্র ইউনিয়ন কার্বাইডের বিলাসবহুল গেস্টহাউসই নয়, তাদের একটা রিসার্চ-ডেভেলপমেন্ট সেন্টারও। যে দু’জায়গা থেকে পাখির চোখে গোটা ভোপাল শহরটাকেই দেখা যায়।

তাই প্রশ্ন তুলে লাভ নেই, কেন ১৯৮৩-তে কংগ্রেসের আঞ্চলিক সম্মেলনের সময়ে কেন্দ্রীয় মন্ত্রীদের থাকার জন্য বেছে নেওয়া হয় মুখ্যমন্ত্রীর অতি প্রিয় সেই কার্বাইড গেস্ট হাউসকে, সম্মেলনের জন্য ব্যবহৃত একমাত্র বেসরকারী গেস্ট হাউস। হাত লম্বা করতে বিভিন্ন মহলকে নিজের দিকে নিয়ে আসতে নতুন নতুন কৌশল নিয়েছে ইউনিয়ন কার্বাইড। ঠিক যেভাবে ভারত-মার্কিন পরমাণু চুক্তির জন্য সরকারের সঙ্গে এদেশের একাংশ গলা ফাটাতে শুরু করেছিল। সেই জাল বিছোতেই তাই ভোপালের অতি পরিচিত প্রভাবশালী এক ডাক্তারকেই তুলে দেওয়া হয় মেডিক্যাল লিগাল অ্যাডভাইসারের দায়িত্ব। রাজ্য পুলিসের প্রাক্তন আই জি রাম নারায়ন নাগুকে দেওয়া হয় নিরাপত্তার দায়িত্ব। রাজ্য মন্ত্রিসভার তৎকালীন দুই সদস্য নরসিংরাও দীক্ষিত ও দিগ্বিজয় সিংয়ের ভাইপো-ভাগ্নেরা বনে যায় কোম্পানির পি আর ও।

এই সমস্ত আঁতাতই দিনে দিনে আরো দৃঢ় হয়েছে। ক্রমেই ফাঁস হচ্ছে, প্রস্তাবিত পরমাণু দায়বদ্ধতা বিলে পরমাণু জ্বালানি সরবরাহকারী এবং বিদেশী চুল্লি নির্মাতাদের যেটুকু ‘দায়বদ্ধতা’ ছিলো, তা—ও সরিয়ে নিতে চলেছে মনমোহন সরকার। দুর্ঘটনা ঘটলে চুল্লির উপাদান সরবরাহকারীদের কাছ থেকে ক্ষতিপূরণের যে সুযোগ বিলের প্রথম খসড়ায় ছিলো (৪৫কোটি ডলার, ভোপাল ক্ষতিপূরণের চেয়েও কম), স্পষ্টতই মার্কিন চাপে তা প্রত্যাহার করেছে ভারত সরকার।

সাধনারা অনেক দিন ধরেই বলছেন, আসলে সরকার এটা করতে চায় বলেই ভোপালকে ধীরে ধীরে লঘু করা হয়েছে। তা না হলে যে পরমাণু দুর্ঘটনাকে সড়ক দুর্ঘটনা বলে দেখানো যাবে না।